Beneficiary Participation in Irrigation Water Management: The Kerala

inclusion of ineligible persons in the tour programmes imply that actual farmers, for whom
such programmes are intended, could not benefit from them. If they had been included,
they could have contributed to the better functioning of BFAs and the irrigation system as
well; also the very purpose for which such tours are financed by the government would have
been better served. On enquiry, some officials did concede, on condition of anonymity, that
undue pressure from above had been exerted on them for inclusion of persons, who would
not have normally been selected. A very large section of th e ordinary members was
unaware of such a facility, since sufficient publicity had not been given to the programmes
by the officials. Here one finds an astonishing degree of collusion between officials and
OBs.
In brief, the instruments of awareness-creation were made use of. Seminars and camps
were organised to the satisfaction of all concerned, CADA officials taking the initiative and
leadership more than the BFA leadership. Tour to model BFAs outside the State was confined
to OBs of BFAs and a privileged few, keeping out to a large extent ordinary BFA members.
Worse still, the OBs who had enjoyed the tour facility failed to disseminate their experiences
to ordinary members, thereby defeating, by and large, the very propose of such tours.
It is expected that BFA leadership will arrange for collection and distribution of the
management subsidy, grants, and other items of assistance, (if any); we proceed to examine
the extent to which BFAs have performed this function.
Regarding subsidy and grant, 255 and 291 respondents respectively out of the total of 457
denied having received any. Most of them were unaware of such provisions and of the
responsibility of BFAs in this connection. Regarding subsidy, around 44 percent of the
respondents were, however, aware of this function to be discharged by their BFAs; in the
case of grant, the corresponding percentage was 36. One of the reasons why the majority of
the respondents denied having received any subsidy or grant was that several BFAs are
defunct. It seems that they were formed and got registered only to acquire one major nonrecurring
benefit, namely field channel lining. After that work was over, they existed only
in name. Only live societies are eligible for such incentives such as grants and subsidies. It
is therefore natural that the defunct BFAs did not apply for them. The members of the live
BFAs and the socially active irrigators in the study area were quite sure of such incentives,
and they responded positively to questions on the availing of these facilities (Table 4.13b).
Reaches-wise, in the case of subsidy, responses of respondents between UR and MR differed
significantly (Table 4.14c). Sixty-two out of 152 respondents (representing 41 percent) of
the UR held the view that BFAs disbursed the subsidy among the members, while 46 out of
136 respondents, (representing 34 percent) of the MR alone concurred to the above view.
Fifty-nine percent of the respondents of Lower Reaches admitted that BFAs played a useful
role in the matter of subsidy disbursement (Table 4.13c).
In the case of grant disbursement, reaches-wise, the trend is more less the same as in the
case of subsidy. The role played by BFA, in the disbursement of grant is found to be less
efficient than in the case of subsidy.
Efforts to avail of ‘Other assistance’ referred to in the Kerala CADA Act, and made maximum
48